The author of the offendingly titled peice Fareena Alam wrote a very good article  http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1707922,00.html but titled it 'Why I reject the anarchists who claim to speak for Islam'. She is the editor of q-news a Muslim UK magazine  http://www.q-news.com/index.htm and argues that 'Violence in the name of Islam has done more to damage the Prophet than any Danish cartoon', but also says 'These anarchists have walked right into the hands of those who believe Muslims have nothing to offer. They have burnt down embassies, pillaged public property and threatened social order - all in the name of a prophet who, they claim, is a mercy to mankind, the same man who was known to welcome and respect ambassadors'.

This is really out of order accusing anarchists of burning down embassies etc and equating them with religious extremists ! Stupid stupid she should go read some anarchist texts quote- "given the anarchist's respect for the sovereignty of the individual, in the long run it is non-violence and not violence which is implied by anarchist values." - As Malatesta put it, violence, while being "in itself an evil," is "justifiable only when it is necessary to defend oneself and others from violence" - For anarchists, means determine the ends and terrorism by its very nature violates life and liberty of individuals and so cannot be used to create an anarchist society.
Just to illistrate a point quotes taken from  http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/
You can contact Fareena Alam to voice your disaproval of her ill chosen word by mailing the observer or q-news at these addresses
 letters@observer.co.uk  editor@q-news.com